>>
I don't have a strong commitment to 507 either, but for what it's worth the
rationale was that any creation of a cross-server binding requires
out-of-band collaboration between the servers. So it seems very likely
that
a lot of servers will fail requests to create a binding to a resource on
another server, so it seems useful to have an error code for this case.
>>
In addition, it is something that the clients understand and can take
action
on. They almost certainly know when they are requesting a cross server
binding
and if they see a 507 then they probably will realize that bindings aren't
supported between the two servers specified in this request... and
therefore
the clients will stop trying.
OTOH, clients probably don't know where the
boundaries between file systems are within the URI namespace so they will
have
difficulty knowing which bindings are allowed and which aren't if a machine
refuses to create bindings across file systems. In other words, they can't
take much action in the situation that Yaron mentioned so for the time
being,
there's probably not much point in using anything other than 500 in the
situation he mentioned